F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Did the Union Branch get a recent design mod adding a small storage track? And if so, why smack over the bridge?

The "paint" track which is the far right track used for storage headed towards Union Square from Swift Interlocking is needed for switching at BET. The lead inside BET only holds 10 cars, so if you are switching more than 10 cars you need use that track. The layover yard holds approx. 18 cars on each track, so if you need to get cars deep on the east end of the yard you need to use the "paint" to accomplish this. My guess is this additional track is a switching lead.

"The project will make use of 4.4 miles of active railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way includes two to four tracks currently used by commuter rail and freight traffic. The project will result in the removal or relocation of freight rail trackage and/or elimination of freight trackage rights owned by others. Negotiations with the owners, Guilford Transportation Industries and CSX Corporation, will be necessary to resolve these issues."

Wow... seriously? Just removing their trackage rights? I realize this is from 2006, but is this really what is still on the table, seeing as it is never ever talked about?

The EGE wrote:Except for the carhouse and its cluster of issues, I suspect it's nothing more than the "relocation of freight trackage" - i.e, moving the Lowell Line tracks over a few feet.

Moving them one "slot", essentially, from 2-in-the-center-of-4 to 2-on-the-Northeast of 4?

I understand you to say that the frieghts may have to vacate any right to operate on the half of the ROW that will be turned over to the GLX and never "do" freights again: (the "dirt" under 1 track and the never-tracked southwest "empty slot" and the right to tie to freight sidings all along the GLX side). So even though they won't be giving up tracks, they'll be giving up dirt and siding access. Is that it?

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

1) There are no sidings or potential sidings/business on the mainline between Mystic and W.Medford, so that's all a moot point. Elhide was the last one and was located off the inbound track right where the Freight Cutoff spilt off. Of course, there was one customer left on the the east end of the FCO at the time too.

2) The track they probably are referring to is the 4th Iron, which ran from Mystic to Somerville Jct. Also includes the old Freight Cutoff. The 4th Iron went out of service back in 12/2001 after DOBO derailed for a second time near Walnut Street. GRS (at the time) never bothering to repair the track and since then all freights coming into Yard 8 were forced to use the handthrow crossovers at Walnut Street off No.2 Track. This crossover was previously used primarily for over-dimension moves (long-gone). GRS, for the want of maintaining the 4th Iron to a perfectly usable (and relatively new interlocking - relocated Somerville Jct), subjected its crews to this slow motion move. I suppose GRS' thinking was the 4th Iron is going anyway for the Green Line, so why bother?

That's over 4-1/2 years old, from when they hadn't narrowed site selection. That was the conceptual design, but final design for the carhouse and the leads aren't finished. Absolute zero new documents released since that one showing the evolution of the design. We don't even know if there's been any progress whatsoever pushing that yard design forward given that it's still unfunded for construction. It's entirely possible nothing has happened since they announced the final site selection nearly 3 years ago.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:That's over 4-1/2 years old, from when they hadn't narrowed site selection. That was the conceptual design, but final design for the carhouse and the leads aren't finished. Absolute zero new documents released since that one showing the evolution of the design. We don't even know if there's been any progress whatsoever pushing that yard design forward given that it's still unfunded for construction. It's entirely possible nothing has happened since they announced the final site selection nearly 3 years ago.

They've tweaked it at least some: in the Community Path presentations, there are maps that show the "South" storage yard (but not the "East" yard and maintenance areas), and in those diagrams (see page 6 & 7 of this presentation) it is shown slightly modified from the original views (having a fork in the flyover, that helps the outbound Union Sq branch do its left turn to go out the Fitchburg, and Lechmere trains go right (and directly to/from) the East Yard, for example) Obviously the lack of a place to put cars into/out-of service directly to/from Lechmere was a big omission in the original, and they've at least added that.

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

Wasn't the GLX due for its FTA Full Funding Grant Agreement(FFGA) right about now? (November 2014?). It's why Mass hiked the gas tax (to show a funding source), and hiked the reserves on the project, so as to impress the FTA with the MBTA's financial soundness. The result was supposed to be that right about now, the GLX woudl get its FFGA in which the Feds would pay for half, yes?

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

Color me pessimistic that Baker will provide anywhere near the support or budget for the GLX that Patrick did.. Has anybody heard him mention anything about it or infrastructure financing, especially in the wake of Q1's defeat?

Gas tax should not be used to pay for public transportation. Except possibly to replace ROW/facilities that were destroyed for highways. [OT] Gas tax should ideally fully cover road costs, no property or income tax use.

Arlington wrote:Wasn't the GLX due for its FTA Full Funding Grant Agreement(FFGA) right about now? (November 2014?). It's why Mass hiked the gas tax (to show a funding source), and hiked the reserves on the project, so as to impress the FTA with the MBTA's financial soundness. The result was supposed to be that right about now, the GLX woudl get its FFGA in which the Feds would pay for half, yes?

Here is a partial answer to my question above: the FTA FFGA should be still on schedule for late this year, given that the MassDOT funding plan did NOT rely on indexed increases in the gas tax, according to Beverly Scott (as quoted by Somerville Step)

At the Somerville Chamber of Commerce Annual Dinner this past Wednesday, MBTA GM Beverly Scott very clearly stated that the GLX will not be affected by the failure of gas tax indexing. The MBTA had provided the Feds with a financing plan that took the possibility of elimination of gas tax indexing into account and they were OK with it.

"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

Does anybody know why the future Brickbottom station name was changed to Washington Street? It seems that the original choice of name was more specific to the site and not to be confused with various other Washington Streets around the region.

Actually, when I used to visit Boston years ago I just knew the area as East Somerville.

Paul1705 wrote:Does anybody know why the future Brickbottom station name was changed to Washington Street? It seems that the original choice of name was more specific to the site and not to be confused with various other Washington Streets around the region.

Actually, when I used to visit Boston years ago I just knew the area as East Somerville.

Thank you.

The station was moved north to appease the Brickbottom artists who didn't like it so close to their building. Moving it sort of took it out of the Brickbottom "neighborhood". I was always told that Washington St was a place holder since there already is a Washington St on the green line.